A social decision function (SDF) à la Sen (1970) is defined as a collective choice rule whose range is restricted to social preference relations which generate a choice function. From Gaertner (2009), a preference relation $R$ generates a choice function over a set $X$ if and only if $R$ is reflexive, complete and acyclical over $X$. I thus struggle to understand where exactly the difference between a SDF and a social choice function (SCF) à la Gibbard-Satterthwaite lies. A SCF is itself a choice function, so the preference relation $R$ generating it must satisfy the same conditions as the one generating a SDF.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't think there can be a single correct answer to this question. Definitions vary across writers (and time). The onus is on the writer in a particular piece to precisely define what she means by any term. $\endgroup$ – Kenny LJ Sep 5 at 2:47

Let $X$ be the set of alternatives.

A social decision function maps profiles of preference orderings to relations on $X$ such that every nonempty subset of $X$ has at least one maximum under this relation.

A social choice function maps profiles of preference orderings to elements of $X$.

Now let $P$ be a profile of preferences, $f$ a social decision function, and $g$ a social choice function.

There might be more than one $f(P)$-maximum in $X$, so $f$, in contrast to $g$, will not always pin down a single choice in $X$.

On the other hand, suppose the alternative $g(P)$ is not available for some reason (say, the winning candidate died). Then $g$ is of no help in finding an alternative from the remaining set of alternatives $X\setminus\{g(P)\}$. But $f(P)$ will allow us to rank the alternatives in this remaining set (provided $g(P)$ is not the only element of $X$), though, again, there might be more than on $f(P)$-maximum in this set.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! So in other words, the $R$ generating a social decision function is complete over all of $X$, while the one generating a social choice function must only be complete for the best alternative? What, then, is the difference between a SDF and a social welfare function? Can't we construct a social welfare function from the information encoded in a SDF (assuming acyclicality?) $\endgroup$ – decisionsdecisions Sep 5 at 8:59
  • $\begingroup$ Edit to my comment above: is it correct that the only difference between SWFs and SDFs is that the former require transitivity ($xPy$ and $yIz \Rightarrow xPz$) while the latter only quasi-transitivity (e.g. it could be that $xPy$ and $yIz$ and $xIz$, such as in Sen's (1969) Pareto extension rule)? $\endgroup$ – decisionsdecisions Sep 5 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ In Sen's 1970 book, the values of an (Arrovian) SWF have to be "orderings" (reflexive, complete, and transitive relations) on $X$, while the values of an SDF need only induce a choice function for all nonempty subsets. I don't have a characterization of that property at hand, but for infinite sets, an SWF need not be an SDF. $\endgroup$ – Michael Greinecker Sep 5 at 12:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.